JUDGMENT Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. The petitioners challenge their conviction under Sections 325, 323, 324, 148 and 149 IPC, for which, they have been sentenced as under:- “Darshan Singh, Convict is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year for having committed the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC and to pay a find of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo further RI for three months; Bant Singh, Najar Singh and Gurcharan Singh, Convicts are sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year for having committed an offence punishable under Section 325/149 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo RI for a period of three months; Darshan Singh, Bant Singh, Najar Singh and Gurcharan Singh, Convicts are also sentenced to undergo RI for a period of six months each for having committed an offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. All the convicts are also sentenced to undergo RI for a period of three months each for having committed an offence punishable under Sections 323/149 IPC. All the convicts are also sentenced to undergo RI for a period of three months each under Section 148 IPC. However, al the sentences shall run concurrently. Out of the amount of fine, if realized, an amount of Rs.1,000/- each shall be released to each injured.” 2. Case of the prosecution is that Mohinder Singh (PW-3) was living in Village Badrukhan for the last 10/12 years with his brother-in-law (sister’s husband) Mukhtiar Singh (PW-4). He used to help him in cultivation. On 25.3.1986 at 4 P.M., Mohinder Singh, Mukhtiar Singh and Modan Singh were proceeding to their fields. On the way, they found the accused persons with their weapons. Gurdev Singh, accused gave a lalkara that Mukhtiar Singh be killed. Darshan Singh gave a gandasa blow to Mukhtiar Singh, hitting him near his left ear, Bant Singh gave a gandasa blow to Mukhtiar Singh near the ear, Jaggar Singh gave two gandasa blows to Mukhtiar Singh near the left ear and near right ear, Gurdev Singh gave two dgandasa blows to Mukhtiar singh on the left shoulder and right shoulder. Darshan Singh gave a gandasa blow to Mukhtiar Singh, hitting him near his left ear, Bant Singh gave a gandasa blow to Mukhtiar Singh near the ear, Jaggar Singh gave two gandasa blows to Mukhtiar Singh near the left ear and near right ear, Gurdev Singh gave two dgandasa blows to Mukhtiar singh on the left shoulder and right shoulder. Modan Singh came forward to save Mukhtiar Singh, on which, Sher Singh gave two gandasa blows to Modan Singh near his left knee, Najar Singh gave a Ghop blow to Modan Singh on his left leg, Gurcharan Singh gave two gandasa blows to Modan Singh on his forehead and right elbow and Bant Singh gave gandasa blow to Modan Singh on his right leg. Gurdev Singh also gave three dang blows to Modan Singh on the right arm. Baru Singh also gave four dang blows to Modan Singh on the sholder and left hand side of leg. Mohinder Singh also intervened to save Mukhtiar Singh and Modan Singh, on which, Bant Singh gave two gandasa blows to Mohinder Singh on head and near the neck. Sher Singh accused also gave a gandasa blow to Mohinder Singh on the left hand and left hand wrist, Gurdev Singh gave two dang blows to Mohinder Singh on the left hand, Baru Singh gave a dang blow on the left hand little finger of Mohinder Singh and Darshan Singh gave gandasa blow to Mohinder Singh on his left shoulder. Mohinder Singh, Mukhtiar Singh and Modan Singh raised alarm, on which, Nachhattar Singh came there. The accused ran away with their respective weapons. Nachhattar Singh removed the injured to Civil Hospital, Sangrur. The motive was that Mukhtiar Singh had a civil litigation pending with Gurdev Singh regarding the ancestral land. Statement of Mohinder Singh was recorded, on which, FIR was registered. 3. Dr. Harnek Singh, Medical Officer, who appeared as PW- 2, deposed that he had found following injuries on the person of Mukhtiar Singh:- “1. Incised wound about 4 cm x 0.5 cm along the margin of left ear pinna. Helix and Antihalxix of pinna are cut through and through in such a way that cartilage has got cut. The wound is running collitely upwards. Fresh bleeding was present. 2. Incised wound about 4 cm x 0.5 cm muscle deep below injury No.1 and extending over the base of left meatoli region. Helix and Antihalxix of pinna are cut through and through in such a way that cartilage has got cut. The wound is running collitely upwards. Fresh bleeding was present. 2. Incised wound about 4 cm x 0.5 cm muscle deep below injury No.1 and extending over the base of left meatoli region. The wound is running obliquely upwards and correspondent to the direction of injury No.4. Fresh bleeding was present. 3. Incised wound about 3 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep on left parietal region of skull about 8 cm, above upper border of left ear pinna. The wound is running obliquely downwards. Fresh bleeding was present (Advised X-ray of region). 4. Incised wound above 3.5 cm x. 0.5 cm x muscle deep on the right parietal bone of skull about 7 cm above the upper border of right ear pinna. The wond was running obliquely downwards. Fresh bleeding was present. Advised for x-ray. 5. Lacerated wound about 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on the front of lower tried of left thigh about 3 cm above left knee joint. Fresh bleeding from the wound was present. The injured complained of painful moments of left knee joint. X-ray was advised. 6. Reddish contusion about 9 cm x 3 cm on the upper part of right shoulder joint. The area was tender and painful. Patient complained of painful and restricted moments of right shoulder joint (x-ray was advised).” 4. He found following injuries on the person of Mohinder Singh:- “1. Incised wound about 3 cm x 0.5 cm by muscle deep in left pariental region of skull about 8 cm above left ear pinna. The wound is running obliquely downwards. Bleeding was present. Advised x-ray. 2. Incised wound about 7 cm x 11 cm muscle deep in mid scalp region. The wound was running vertically upwards. Fresh bleeding was present. X-ray was advised. 3. Lacerated wound about 2 cm x 1 cm muscle deep, just below dorsem of base of left index finger. Complaint of painful and regiricted moments of left index finger. X-ray was advised. 4. Reddish contusion about 3 cm x 3 cm in the inner surface of lower part of left fore-arm about 1 cm above the left wrist joint on the lateral side. Area swollen and tender. Complains of painful moments of left wrist joints. (Advised x-ray of region including left wrist joint). 5. X-ray was advised. 4. Reddish contusion about 3 cm x 3 cm in the inner surface of lower part of left fore-arm about 1 cm above the left wrist joint on the lateral side. Area swollen and tender. Complains of painful moments of left wrist joints. (Advised x-ray of region including left wrist joint). 5. Contusion about 2 cm x 1.5 cm about the base of left thumb. The corresponding area in the area of about 4 cm x 4 cm was swollen and tender. X-ray was advised. 6. Complained of painful and restricted moments of left little finger. X-ray was advised of right region. 7. Reddish contusion about 1 cm x 1 cm about 1 cm above the base of right little finger. Moments of right little finger are painful and restrictive. X-ray of the region advised. 8. Contusion about 2 cm x 3 cm on the upper part of right arm. The area was tender and swollen. Complained of painful and restricted moments of right shoulder joint. X-ray was advised of the region.” 5. He found following injuries on the person of Modan Singh:- “1. Incised wound about 4 cm x 1 cm by muscle deep. On mid frontal region of skull about 9 cm above root of nose. The wound was running vertically downwards. Fresh bleeding was present. Advised x-ray of the region. 2. Incised wound about 4 cm x 1 cm by muscle deep on the back of upper part of right fore-arm about 4 cm below right elbow joint. The wound was running vertically upwards. Fresh bleeding was present. Complained of painful moments of right elbow joint. (X-ray was advised of the region including right elbow joint). 3. Reddish contusion about 2 cm x 2 cm on inner aspect of upper part of right fore-arm. Area swollen of painful. X-ray was advised. 4. Lacerated wound about ½ x ½ cm muscle deep in front of right fore-arm. About 2 cm above injury No.3 and about 3 cm below right elbow joint. X-ray was advised of the region. 5. Reddish contusion about 2 cm x 2 cm on the top of right shoulder joint. The area was swollen and tender and painful. Complained of painful and restricted moments of right shoulder joint. X-ray of the region was advised. 6. Contusion about 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm on the back of left wrist joint on medial side. 5. Reddish contusion about 2 cm x 2 cm on the top of right shoulder joint. The area was swollen and tender and painful. Complained of painful and restricted moments of right shoulder joint. X-ray of the region was advised. 6. Contusion about 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm on the back of left wrist joint on medial side. Complained of painful and restricted moments of left wrist joint. X-ray was advised. 7. Incised wound about 3 cm x 1 cm muscle deep on front of left leg about 4 cm below left knee. Fresh bleeding was present and x-ray was advised. 8. Incised wound about 2 cm x 1 cm on front of left leg, about 3 cm below injury No.7, bleeding was present. X-ray of the region was advised. 9. Penetrating wound about 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm in front of left leg, about 4 cm below injury No.8. Fresh bleeding was present. (x-ray of the region was advised). 10. Reddish abrasion about 1 cm x 0.5 cm in front of right fore-arm in mid region. 11. Lacerated wound about 0.5 x 1 cm x muscle deep in front of right leg, about 3 cm below. Right knee. Fresh bleeding was present. X-ray was advised of the region. 12. Lacerated wound about 1 x 1.5 cm x muscle deep in front of right leg, about 2 cm below. below injury No.11. Fresh bleeding was present. X-ray was advised of the region. 13. Incised wound about 1 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on front of lower one third region of right leg. Fresh bleeding was present and X-ray was advised of the region. 6. ASI Niranjan Dass (PW-6) proved the investigation conducted by him. The stand of the accused was that the case of the prosecution was false. In defence, they examined Waryam Singh (DW-1) and Ram Chand (DW-2). 7. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court held that the case of the prosecution was proved beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced the petitioners in the above manner. The stand of the accused was that the case of the prosecution was false. In defence, they examined Waryam Singh (DW-1) and Ram Chand (DW-2). 7. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court held that the case of the prosecution was proved beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced the petitioners in the above manner. Apart from the petitioners, Ram Singh, Sher Singh, Jaggar Singh, Baru Singh and Gurdev Singh were also convicted, but having regard to the fact that Ram Singh, Sher Singh and Jaggar Singh were below 21 years of age, while Baru Singh and Gurdev Singh were old aged, they were granted benefit of probation, while the four petitioners were sentenced in the manner indicated earlier. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the other accused having been given benefit of probation, the petitioners should also be given probation particularly when proceedings have remained pending for the last 21 years. It was also pointed out that the person who took them to the hospital was not examined and no independent witness was examined and the version given by the witnesses was not reliable as even though several gandasa blows were given, there were no cuts on the ears and the accused were falsely implicated on account of pendency of civil litigation between the parties. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that injured witnesses Mohinder Singh (PW-3) and Mukhtiar Singh (PW-4) were reliable and there was no reason to reject their testimony. The injuries suffered by them could not be held as selfsuffered. Injuries on the person of Mukhtiar Singh, Mohinder Singh and Modan Singh included head injuries and total number of 27 injuries have been found on the person of three injured persons and thus, conviction of the petitioners was fully justified, which does not call for interference in revisional jurisdiction. The sentence of one year is not excessive having regard to the nature of injuries. 10. Having perused the evidence on record, I find that the case of the prosecution stands fully established against the petitioners. There is no reason to reject the testimony of Mohinder Singh (PW-3) and Mukhtiar Singh (PW-4), which was fully corroborated by medical evidence. Mere pendency of civil litigation between the parities is no ground to disbelieve them, when the injured have been found to be having injuries which could not be selfsuffered. There is no reason to reject the testimony of Mohinder Singh (PW-3) and Mukhtiar Singh (PW-4), which was fully corroborated by medical evidence. Mere pendency of civil litigation between the parities is no ground to disbelieve them, when the injured have been found to be having injuries which could not be selfsuffered. The occurrence was in a broad day light and there was no mistake of identity. It is not possible to believe that they left out the real accused and falsely implicated the petitioners. Merely because other persons were given benefit of probation, could be no ground to give same benefit to the petitioners. 11. Coming to the question of sentence, I am of the view that having regard to the fact that 21 years have passed, it will be appropriate if the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone, subject to the petitioners compensating the injured by paying a sum of Rs.15,000/- each, to be shared equally by all the three injured. The petitioners will be at liberty to either pay the amount of compensation direct to the injured and furnish the receipt to the trial Court or deposit the amount before the trial Court itself, within six months, on which the trial Court will disburse the same to the injured in equal share. If the petitioner fails to pay the amount of compensation awarded, they will undergo RI for one year each. The revision is disposed of. ———————